Ring updates championship policy to fill vacancies

[Roman Moreno]

So what if the #1 guy fights at the #4 guy and the #2 guy fights the #3 guy at the same day.

Which fight would be for the vacant belt?

[MrRolltide91]

this is bull****

[Kris Silver]

I don't think it's a very consistent or clear in meeting it's objective.

The idea is the Ring belt is hard to get, special, therefore sought after.

If you make it substantially easier to obtain the belt then people have it and it opens up yet more dispute of whether it's really merited.

As has been said, if the #2 guy beats the #5 guy whom is also stylistically perfect for him, it's BS he could be ring champ. The #1 guy could be actively trying to face said #2 guy, and even a #3 or so.

So it's going to fall on it's head and become illogical, very debatable quite often, losing it's value.

Shame.

[ИATAS]

The Ring is officially shit!!!

I knew it was a bad sign when editor-in-chief Nigel Collins was fired by Golden Boy Promotions, owner of The Ring, but then others were fired too and basically they cleaned house. The entire magazine is different and it's really lost it's credibility. Also if anyone has read the last two issues you know it is crap (mistakes galore, bad articles and just lost it's "Ring" feel to it).

I've been a long time subscriber but cancelled my subscription recently as a result of this BS.

I also used to hold The Ring belt in the highest regard most every time because obviously you could only get it if you beat the man who beat the man, or by the #1 fighting the #2 (rarely EVER could you get it by the #1 fighting the #3, only if there is a damn good reason for example knowing that Wlad would never fight Vitali) but this is an absolute joke if they'll give out a belt if the #1 fights the #4 or #5.

[crold1]

I thoroughly disagree with this direction. Under this premise, Salgado COULD face Martinez for the title at 130. They may (note they use the word may over will on 2-5 matches) not allow something like that, but it's possible in theory. That's unfathomable. I removed myself from the Ring's Ratings Advisory Panel following the release of these new rules.

It's nothing personal. I think Mike and Doug are good dudes and a lot of what they've done with Ring has been good. The magazine, after some hiccups, has been looking sharp and more modern. They've diversified the pool of writers, giving Gresiman a column that rocks BTW.

I just can't get with this outlook on ratings and champions. It's not like Nigel and co. was some pursit panacea. They BLATANTLY ignored the publications own history and ignored clear lineages when they restarted (based on Ring's own lines, Flyweight and Feather were unbroken when they re-established). It was also pedantically obsessed with rules and didn't allow for wiggle. In the 1980s, Ring recognized Hearns at 54 before Duran by process of elimination. The same should have been done when Vic won all three belts at 15 and Montiel left the class, but he didn't get what he earned in the Ring because he beat guys in the wrong order? Silly. Ring also largely refused to give Pacquiao credit for being the first fighter ever to win lineal titles in four classes. That was an editorial choice to ignore THEIR OWN lineage, instead pointing out his three Ring belts in self congratulatory fashion. That's intellectual dishonesty. Period.

Still, they leaned in what I think was the right direction on what a genuine World Champion is. I don't think the new policy does it.

[DoktorSleepless]

I thoroughly disagree with this direction. Under this premise, Salgado COULD face Martinez for the title at 130. They may (note they use the word may over will on 2-5 matches) not allow something like that, but it's possible in theory. That's unfathomable. I removed myself from the Ring's Ratings Advisory Panel following the release of these new rules.

It's nothing personal. I think Mike and Doug are good dudes and a lot of what they've done with Ring has been good. The magazine, after some hiccups, has been looking sharp and more modern. They've diversified the pool of writers, giving Gresiman a column that rocks BTW.

I just can't get with this outlook on ratings and champions. It's not like Nigel and co. was some pursit panacea. They BLATANTLY ignored the publications own history and ignored clear lineages when they restarted (based on Ring's own lines, Flyweight and Feather were unbroken when they re-established). It was also pedantically obsessed with rules and didn't allow for wiggle. In the 1980s, Ring recognized Hearns at 54 before Duran by process of elimination. The same should have been done when Vic won all three belts at 15 and Montiel left the class, but he didn't get what he earned in the Ring because he beat guys in the wrong order? Silly. Ring also largely refused to give Pacquiao credit for being the first fighter ever to win lineal titles in four classes. That was an editorial choice to ignore THEIR OWN lineage, instead pointing out his three Ring belts in self congratulatory fashion. That's intellectual dishonesty. Period.

Still, they leaned in what I think was the right direction on what a genuine World Champion is. I don't think the new policy does it.

*High five* for having principles.

Yeah, the more I think about, I'm not sure even fighting the #3 contender should be allowed for the ring belt.

[Fighting Pride]

So this means if Pac beats the winner of Berto/Ortiz or Kell Brook he is Ring Champ? Might actually get Mayweather to agree to fight him, it would hurt him deep if Pac was the Ring champ. Bad thing is if Mayweather decides to face Kell Brook or the Berto/Ortiz winner he will become champ without fighting Pac who he is ducking and his demands would get even more ridiculous. Good thing Canelo looks like he is next and Floyd will be dropped from the welter ratings

[Jack Napier]

stupid as hell
better to have no Ring champ than let # 4 or #5 fight for it
point is supposed to be the best fighting the best for it
why'd they change it from unifying IBF/WBA/WBC crowning a Ring champ?
right before Darchinyan did so they killed off that ruling
the usual 1 vs 2 or 1 vs 3 rule was fine
they're losing credibility now

[FiftyCal]

What was the old policy btw? I dont think anything really changed

#1 vs. #2 (or 1 vs. 3 under special circumstances)

Beltholder retains until he loses, moves up in weight, or retires

[LeG00N]

I didn't read all of it ....but did it just say that if the # 2 fought the # 5 it would be for the Ring belt?

that's dildos